Core ideas
What is matter Matter consists of atoms, going smaller one eventually reaches nothing, which implies that matter consists of nothing. This makes no sense. Only ideas exist * objectivity does not need an object and testability is itself not testable. * Asserting as Dawkins does that Pattern or design are not our only options violates the law of excluded middle(A or not A) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle * logic cannot be tested ,as the verification would have to use logic. * Materialism is the reification of induction. The general usage of the term 'science' is a reification of induction. Induction, because it is circular can only be used, not experienced. * Our usage of induction is justified by God , all his conclusions are contained in his premises by necessity because he knows everything. * Calvin's predestination makes the effects of faith unfalsifiable and facilitates the Retrospective determination fallacy. * Deriving conclusions from premises applies only to finite knowledge, under infinite knowledge all conclusions are contained in the premises by necessity. * Falsifiability isn't falsifiable, like logic isn't verifiable. * Tautologies enables non-tautological thinking. * "I Am That I Am" is the Virtuous Tautology that enables all expression of experiences. Logical fallacies There can be no physical evidence for the non-physical. Numbers are an extension of the law of excluded middle, with '7' is meant either an increase from 6 or regression from 8 for example. The laws of logic enable the expression of the experience and numbers the ratiocination about the measurement: numbers and laws of logic cannot be experienced nor measured, preventing infinite regress. These laws only exist in a mind and aren't contingent on human minds, before the arrival of human minds the universe couldn't have both existed and not existed at the same time and manner(law of non-contradiction). Because we use them to express our experiences , it means our experiences also exist only in a mind(George Berkeley), preventing the reification of these laws. When Dan Barker stated to Bruggencate that he could be wrong about anything he did not think to apply the logic to the very assertion itself. The act of doubting is itself certain - certainty of the doubt. In order to be uncertain about everything, one must be certain about one thing,namely the assertion itself. Hence the position that one could be wrong about everything is self-refuting. Zeno's paradox Motion isn't a number, like experience isn't logic, the map isn't the territory. Zeno's paradox commits the Reification fallacy. Numbers and physics equations are the map to the territory of our experience, but not the experience. Sometimes the interaction of matter and energy corresponds to a tautology but not under all conditions. 1+1 apple = 2 apples under the force of gravity, but under the force of a blender blade it equals one unit of juice(1+1=1). When we ratiocinate about our experiences with apples, we are not faced with a seeming insurmountable philosophical problem as with Zeno, because mathematical tautologies are not being reified or made concrete as with Zeno. Malthus population theory derives from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. I am not sure about this, but I think Smith and Malthus committed the reification fallacy. The structure of their argument corresponds to a tautology(apples example) under certain conditions(closed mathematical set), but not all conditions. This is why the question was raised as to how Malthus could have been shown to be wrong by experimental observation as published in journal papers, if Malthus theory was a tautology. My pending solution to this is that once the subtle reification is unearthed, the tautology question is not raised, as it isn't raised with the apples example. Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' reified a closed mathematical set, the actual reason for economic growth is technological breakthroughs such as the computer. Intra competition is but a peripheral matter, a side-effect. On RTnews a guest said "The economy must liberate us and not dominate us". An economy like a university is not a physical institution, his economy statement reified the economy. Bias Event the assertion that we must not be biased, is biased for not being biased. Everybody is biased, biases change. Forces are not logic http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006/07/pamela-winnicks-science-envy.html "....Some theories are better supported than others; only the really well-supported theories, such as gravity and evolution, can be considered as similar to facts, keeping in mind that in science every explanation is provisional...." Shallit confuses a force - gravity- with a premise 'Evolution'. Under the rubric of evolution is the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past, there is no falsifiable mechanism theory as to how the conclusion that attributes were acquired from nothing could have transpired. Can prove non-existence of something http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C64tuvmZwgc wl craig fitness fitness, variation etc. are all dissimilar terms for the acquisition conclusion from the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past. Them Evolutionary narrative invokes the conclusion as the mechanism. What is needed ia a mechanism to bind the conclusion to the premise . Logic invoked as force Darwin took a Claim of logic and invoked it as a force.